Friday, May 01, 2009
Monarchy
I’ve been reading Unqualified Reservations lately, in part because some of his ideas seem to be a direct evolution of Albert Jay Nock’s philosophy. It’s hard to find people these days that think like Nock, so when I find them, I tend to latch on and read voraciously until there’s nothing left. Then it takes me awhile to digest that information, and as it percolates, I tend to go back and forth on what it all means.
The main argument at UR is that democracy is deeply flawed in many ways. The high level summary of the problem is that it inherently leads to socialism – it is a slippery slope that is inevitable and unstoppable. The root cause of this is two-fold.
First, dividing power amongst a large group of people results in subsets of that group coming together to grab as much power as they can in order to prey on other subsets of the larger group. Democracy inherently creates an incentive to this behavior.
Second, even though we say that democracy puts power in the hands of the populace, the reality is that a large fraction of the populace doesn’t care enough to wield this power in a responsible fashion. They are very susceptible to arguments from authority, and thus those in authority wield an exceptionally large amount of power in a democracy. As the author of UR puts it, in a democracy, universities manufacture policy and journalists manufacture consent. Everyone wants to be smart and hip, so they agree with the guys in the ivory tower that are by definition the smartest guys in the room. They have letters after their names, you know. But again, the problem is that the ivory tower guys have every incentive to manufacture policy that benefits themselves – such as central economic planning, a massive edifice of state-directed education, global warming and other pseudo-scientific hysteria, etc. What was ivory tower theory 25 years ago is now part of our common societal knowledge. Ideas inevitably flow from Harvard to Main Street, with the New York Times and CNN pounding them into our heads day after day. Thus, ever leftward we go.
Sadly, I can’t argue with any of this. Democracy IS deeply flawed, and I think he’s pegged the core of the issue.
The next main argument at UR is that monarchy is substantially preferable to democracy.
Uhhhhh….. what?
Yes, monarchy. The author calls himself a Jacobite and a reactionary, terms coined back in the day when democracy was an upstart movement against the established monarchies of Europe. His argument is that a small, powerful government like a monarchy is greatly preferable to the large, sprawling, capricious government one gets with democracy.
That much is true, but I think he mischaracterizes monarchy. The best monarchy is better than a bad democracy, for sure. But what happens when the monarch dies, the inbred moronic son takes the crown, and suddenly left-handers and red-heads are enemies of the state?
Democracy can be arbitrary and capricious, but it is usually moderated by the law of averages. Monarchy is also arbitrary and capricious, but it has little to stop its excesses. The populace is at the mercy of one person and the willingness of that person’s agents to carry out their will. How is that better? At least democracy is more-or-less predictable.
The author of UR declares conservatives to be well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided. He says that we believe in democracy but ignore the fact that it will always, without exception, degrade into socialism. Basically, we ask the mob to act as it would under a libertarian monarchy and are constantly surprised when they refuse to cooperate.
I don’t quite see it that way. We want a “good” democracy, in the same way that he wants a “good” monarchy. The way I see it though, a good monarchy is one fish bone away from a bad monarchy. I once heard a Russian proverb – the best possible government is a good tsar, the worst possible government is a bad tsar. I see no way to keep a bad monarch from power, short of armed insurrection. And even with a good monarch, absolute power corrupts.
A good democracy may be guaranteed to degrade, but it won’t do so overnight. We know we will wake up tomorrow under more-or-less the same conditions of today. It took two hundred years for our democracy to degrade into socialism. The fact that it happened doesn’t automatically mean that monarchy is better, only that it’s time for a reset.
Regardless, UR is fascinating reading, particularly in all of the primary historical source material that he links. I wish I had time to read it all. Just be careful not to fall into the trap of accepting theory as reality, the same logical flaw that many scientific-minded libertarians (including myself) have fallen into at one time or another.
Comments
-
I love old Moldy. He has his tongue firmly pressed against one cheek (and his dark humor is lost on far too many in his comments), but there is an undercurrent of truth and wisdom in what he says, albeit, tainted by his progressive upbringing. He is the closest thing we have these days to HL.
What Moldbug is guilty of in designing his corporate-state, however, is that tendency for engineering types to design a perfect system for imperfect humans. It’s like Japanese car makers who design the perfect automobile for the average consumer… it’s perfect, right up until someone like me, a 6’1” tall woman, tries to get into it without slamming my head against the door. OW OW OW! And if you want sexy and driving lust, furgettaboutit. People thrive on conflict, drama, and carving out their niche, and there is no one-size-fits-average solution for that.
A long time ago (in a galaxy far-far away), my nephew was having a conversation with my dear-departed brother. My brother had started playing Simm City (and had been engrossed in it for a few weeks), my nephew, a basement-gamer extraordinaire, commented that he’d beaten the game in less than 48 hours. My brother, astonished, asked “HOW?” My nephew responded:
“Don’t create any people.”
heh
Mrs. du Toit | 5/1/2009 09:57 AM CDT -
He has his tongue firmly pressed against one cheek (and his dark humor is lost on far too many in his comments)…
I can’t stand his comments. They’ve got all of Moldbug’s pedantry but none of the humor.
I agree completely about the corporate state, too. It also suffers from the “how do we get there from here” problem. If you could play God, snap your fingers, and create a governmental system, you could create that setup if you chose. I don’t see any other conceivable way to get there from here. It’s an interesting thought experiment with no practical use whatsoever.
American Farmer | 5/1/2009 12:29 PM CDT -
I’ve been mulling this over for a few days now, and thought I’d finally add my two-cents.
The Mrs was correct in likening UR’s author’s viewpoint to that of the Japanese enginners who designed the perfect car, but didn’t take into account that people come in different sizes. It’s like an engineering problem, if you require a part that’s exactly four inches long and stays that way for the life of the item you have a poor design because (a) that piece will NEVER be exactly four inches, it’ll be four inches to within certain tolerances (and tighter tolerances are more expensive) (b) the piece will wear, so even if it started out at four inches pretty soon it’ll be less, and (c) even if your magic part doesn’t wear, other parts will and change the tolerances from the outside. So a monarchy will work provided you have a perfect monarch, who remains a perfect monarch, and who doesn’t have imperfect people around him messing things up. Such a place would be a real nice place to live, but finding that combination makes the needle in a haystack seem like child’s play.
Maybe Democracy eventually devolves into Socialism, but maybe the answer to that is a periodic re-making of the Democracy. That whole thing about the tree of liberty being refreshed by the blood of martyrs and tyrants.
Mark D | 5/11/2009 09:09 AM CDT -
I think the larger problem in comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of hereditary secession or democracy, is that they BOTH end up in the same place.
Socialism is simply a flavor of totalitarian rule, the same result of a non-benevolent King. Every system, regardless of how well-conceived or how well-intended, always circles back to the beginning. Eventually, regardless of how well-maintained or loved, you buy a new car to replace the old one.
The solution to both (all) was and will always be refreshed by the blood of martyrs and tyrants.
Rinse. Repeat. Ad infinitum.
The acceptance of that is where one finds happiness, contentment, comfort, and a sense of continuity. And if that seems contrary (counter-intuitive and pessimistic), the acceptance isn’t complete. Mull on that.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Mrs. du Toit | 5/15/2009 01:45 PM CDT -
Sexy lesbians in free lesbian videos! Daily updated
grut | 6/26/2009 03:18 PM CDT
